2012 (10) TMI 998 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Advisor to the Administrator had the jurisdiction to approve the acquisition of the appellants land? Whether the reports prepared by the LAO under Section 5A(2) were vitiated due to non- consideration of the objections filed by the landowners and the same could not be made basis for deciding whether the land was really needed for the particular public purpose?

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the Advisor to the Administrator.
2. Validity of the reports prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO).
3. Compliance with Sections 4, 5A, and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
4. Consideration of objections filed by landowners.
5. Environmental and ecological impact of the acquisition.
6. Public purpose and bona fides of the acquisition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Advisor to the Administrator:
The court examined whether the Advisor to the Administrator had the jurisdiction to approve the acquisition of land. The President, under Article 239(1) of the Constitution, had delegated the powers of the 'appropriate Government' under the Land Acquisition Act to the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The court concluded that the delegation of this power to the Advisor by the Administrator was not permissible. The notifications dated 8.10.1968, 1.1.1970, and 14.8.1989 specifically required that only the Administrator could exercise these powers. Therefore, the Advisor's approval of the acquisition was invalid.

2. Validity of the Reports Prepared by the LAO:
The court found that the LAO's reports were vitiated due to non-application of mind. The LAO had not objectively considered the objections filed by the landowners and had merely created a facade of doing so. The court noted that the LAO's statement about having seen the revenue records and conducted a spot inspection was misleading and false. The reports lacked any substantive consideration of the objections, violating the mandate of Section 5A(2).

3. Compliance with Sections 4, 5A, and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The court emphasized the importance of Sections 4, 5A, and 6, which require the appropriate Government to consider objections and the LAO's report before making a declaration under Section 6(1). The court found that the Chandigarh Administration had failed to comply with these provisions. The satisfaction of the appropriate Government, as required under Section 6(1), was not recorded, and the declarations issued under Section 6(1) were deemed to be made without proper application of mind.

4. Consideration of Objections Filed by Landowners:
The court held that the LAO and the higher authorities of the Chandigarh Administration had not given due consideration to the objections filed by the landowners. The objections, which included concerns about environmental impact and the bona fides of the public purpose, were not addressed. The reports prepared by the LAO were found to be mechanical and lacking in objective analysis.

5. Environmental and Ecological Impact of the Acquisition:
The court noted that the objections regarding the adverse impact on the environment and ecology of the area were not considered by the LAO. The landowners had raised concerns about the destruction of green cover, deforestation, and the impact on the Sukhna Lake and Sukhna Choe catchment area. The court found that the Chandigarh Administration had failed to address these concerns, which was a significant lapse.

6. Public Purpose and Bona Fides of the Acquisition:
The court did not specifically address the issue of whether the acquisition was for a bona fide public purpose, as it had already found the acquisition process to be flawed on other grounds. However, the court noted that the acquisition of land for IT Park and other purposes had raised questions about the true intent behind the acquisition, especially given the involvement of private developers.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order, and quashed the notifications issued by the Chandigarh Administration under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The court emphasized the need for compliance with statutory provisions and the importance of considering objections raised by landowners. The parties were left to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →